democratic. but we mist build that relationship because together we can do so much and without that we can do as we have seen, nothing. listening and compromise were key to the work of the national commission on children in the 1990s. i was the chair or the commission, which included a bipartisan group of government officials and an elected -- appointed experts in various fields from all backgrounds. there were many of us. 32. and we went all over the country to two years. i can tell you that reaching consensus was tough but we listened, debated, and we came to trust. even the most liberal and consecutives among us knew and each of us -- that each of us had the best interests of children at our hurt. that was not in dispute. while meet until women'sburg, --

williamsburg virginia, i had to leave for an important senate vote on iraq. handed the gavel to our most conservative republican member. someone in whom i had trust. that shocked people. but it helped on the consensus. in the end, we were proud, madam president, to vote 32-0, in support of the legislation that we put forward, and our policy statement as a whole. and that included both policies --ed through the creation of a new refundable child tax credit for the first time, and a major expansion hoff the earned income tax credit, which has lifted millions of american families out of

poverty. it worked. because we listened to one another. respected one another. and we wanted to come to an agreement. it was clear, obvious. and there it was, 32-0. unbelievable but it happened. is that possible these days? my answer is, yes. and i believe that we can see that the spirit again, as we address the future of the bipartisan children's health insurance program shift, that's the way it's known. it currently provides health care to 8.3 million children and pregnant women nationwide, and 40,000 of those are in west virginia. the program is so important to me because it offers health care which is tailored to children,

to where it has both mental and dental health care tailored to children. it is in fact better coverage than the affordable care act provides children. from those early dives vista i have seen the devastating toll the lack of medical care can extract from a child's being being and self-esteem and their will to succeed. many of you also know the names and faces of children who have gone throughout access to proper health care and those are who we fight for. that is why chip has always been a bipartisan effort, driven by the needs of real kids and their families. senators grassley and hatch were instrumental in its creation over a period of a couple of years. long arguments, and they continue to be strong advocates.

the bipartisan chip program has opened doors for millions who desperately needed to get into a doctor's office and now are able to do so. but a warning. every door that chip opened, will be closed if we -- unless we can agree to carry chip funding past mid-2015. and i don't know what the prospects for that are. all i know is that if they aren't done properly, those doors close, those kids had access to doctors but they don't anymore. and that is unconscionable to me. you have to look at the faces of those children in your own states, and think about that. it is those individual faces that i remember.

remembering for whom we work is paramount. when any corporate ceo comes to my office, i show them a prized birthday gift from my four children, our four children. my wife is here. a picture of a hard-working coalminer whose face is honest, but hurting, and very proud. that picture means so much to me because it embodies the spirit of those that i am here to serve. and silently reminds us why we must work towards a common ground, why this is not about democrats democrats and republican but about the people we're here to serve, bringing different viewpoints to what that means. senator mike enzi and i are not on the same side of every vote, to put it mildly.

but we're very, very good friends. a friendship that was made years ago when i was on the president's coal commission and he was the mayor of gillette, wyoming, trying to build houses fast enough for all the people moving in there through coal. he also had sideburns. i say that off record. on a gray day in january in 2006, west virginia was frozen in disbelief when we learned that 12 trapped miners were killed in sago mine, a mine in the north central part of the state. in the days that followed as we struggled to make sense of what happened, senators enzi and senator isaacson, joined senator kennedy, senator manchin and myself in west virginia.

they, the first two, did not merely visit. they came to understand. they came to learn. they came to share in the grief and to offer their support to the community. and you could tell that in their faces. together, out of tragedy, and because they were members of the health and education committee, labor, we forged a compromise on mine safety legislation that brought about frankly the strongest safety improvements in a generation. hewn -- huge for us. only 16 states mine coal but we're one of them to this day senator isaac coin carries a picture or one of the sago miners. it is not in the wallet he is caring today but in the other wallet back in atlanta. that picture is in his wallet

every single day. we knew that as public officials compromising and really leading meant governing, which is why we were there. entering the needs of our country is our responsibility and we do that best when we work shoulder to shoulder. it was working shoulder to shoulder when we set our country on a path to future innovation. a few years ago america's domination in our innovation, our inventions, and creative problem-solving was eroding and we all knew it. we needed to act. we needed to reinvigorate our leadership and keep our jobs and future more secure. we answer that call with the bipartisan compromise that delivered the america competes reauthorization act. i will never forget that. this legislation made yankees

investments in science, basic research science technologies engineering, and math education. senator okay kay bailey hutchin, who was on the commerce committee. senator at lexer in and i south unanimous con sent to get the bill passed because we thought we worked out the details, and do it prior to the recess. therefore we had to do it by unanimous concept. but there were five objections. holding the bill still. instead of retreating to party corners, and pointing fingers, we compromised, right on that center aisle, right there, next to senator collins. and we wandered up and down, add also money, took money off, took some billion dollars off. we removed a couple of programs that were absolutely necessary

to satisfy kay bailey or lamar alexander, and we lad ourselves a $44 billion bill over five years on which we agreed. we didn't have to have a vote. senator hutchinson, and senator alexander, tenaciously worked to clear the holds. it was, madam president, absolutely beautiful. it was just beautiful. a $44 billion program to reinvigorate our nation, cerebrally and productively. we catapulted to success. reaching moments like those requires persistence, demandses collaboration, it demand trust and compromise. and it is so worth it. i'm driven by the process of creating policy.

i love doing that. it's grinding. it's intense, can be frustrating and sometimes heartbreaking. often heartbreaking but when we accomplish something that is meaningful to the people who entrust to us represent them there is no greater reward. we have to know who and what we must fight for in our work. and in our own personal views. we have to know and understand those who will benefit, those who will lose, and we have to be ready for it to take a long time, much longer than we thought, sometimes five years, sometimes ten years. that makes no difference. you keep at it, you don't let go of it, because if you keep at it, somewhere along some combination of senators is going to say, yes, that's okay. and then we get ourselves a bill. and also we keep in our souls the faces, again, of the people we try to help. the people in my case who are

all too often left behind. the senate must face serious social and policy issues from health care to cybersecurity, caring for veterans coming home, building the infrastructure, making our economy work for everyone. these are our core responsibilities. i'm proud that we have made some measure of progress, and while we seem right now be at an impasse, i know that the senate will rise to the mission of addressing our biggest issues, and some point and some way it will happen. as a governing body we must not allow recent failures to take root. it means to much to us. we must not be focuses on episodic, gotcha, issues. rather than working to address broader, more systemic problem-solving. no one else is going to step in to do this. if we don't.

the truth was on full display a few weeks ago when the senate failed to move forward on national security administration reforms necessary to uphold the mission to protect our nation. these are views on which i have very strong views. i have taken very seriously my 14 years on the intelligence committee, as a member and is a chairman, because the global threats we face increase daily as the world becomes more connected. we depend on the highly trained professionals at nsa to zero in on the threats. there's really only 22 of them that make the sort of final decisions. they're highly trained. they've taken the oath of office to protect our nation. now, i don't think that we have any excuse to outsource our intelligence work to telecommunications firms. i work on the commerce

committee. i've seen what the telecommunications companies do when they can get away with it. everything from cramming to -- just all kind of not very nice things. it's the job of government to address this issue. the private sector and free market alone cannot solve those kinds of problems, and should not. that is a government responsibility. being carried out, might say, with great success. a lot of people say, what if? but the fact of the matter is, nobody has ever been able to show me member whose privacy has been -- she me somebody whose privacy has been influenced or barack broken into by the newscast. you know, good, hard-working people can be destroyed by circumstances beyond their

control. it is our job not to let that happen. it is our job to help to give everyone a fair shot. so say that, of course, is much easier to say than to do, but that is our charge. too many children come into a world where circumstances preclude the opportunities they should have. we cannot discount the many challenges our society still faces. it's unconscionable, madam president, in a country like hours that, people go without health care or go hungry or have no place to call home. when shareholders and the free market cannot or will not solve our problems, it's government's responsibility to step in everytime. people can decry government all they want. but we're here for a reason. when private companies decide there isn't enough profit to

provide internet to rural areas, then we step in and we expand broadband. allowing the erate to go farther and farther out. now covers i think 97% of all spools in the country. or maybe the private sector decides they can't make enough by insuring the sickest of our children. we must act. that is our core mission. it's who we are as an institution. it's who we must always be. we have worked to give children a fair shot through the erate program which introduces even the most rural classrooms and small is libraries to the world to the internet, access to foreign language class or research, gives every child the key to unlock their potential. doesn't mean they will but it means they can. we know health care is fundamental to fair shots as

well. we can't learn or keep a job if we're sick. but providing that care has not always been as profitable as some companies would like. so we make sure millions of americans could have the dignity of access to health care under the affordable care act. my friend sam is one of the faces i will never forget. when he was battling childhood leukemia, and hit his lifetime insurance cap -- a technical term with a savage consequence -- his parents' insurance company walked away from this courageous little fighter. his parents, both school teachers, were left with heart wrenching decisions like getting divorced, which they considered. so sam could qualify for

medicaid. well, in the end, it didn't matter. sam lost his battle with cancer. but today, under the affordable care act, we have made sure that no insurance companies can abandon someone like sam when they need help the most. healthcare reform won't ever take away the crushing agony of parents with sick kids. but heartbreaking situations like sam drove to us say, no more, and we changed the law. parents deserve to focus every bit of their energy fighting for their kids in every way, not fighting insurance companies. so we did the right thing, madam president. we did the right thing. government also did the right thing when i fought for what i thought my life depended on it, because it did, to pass the coal act of 1992. long forgotten.

we had to step in and stop some coal companies from walking away from benefits benefits which thd promised by contract to retired coalminers and their widows. folks mostly in their 70s and 80s. passing the coal act was a enormously important to our country. i it not only prevent an absolute terms a national coal strike in 1993, but it delivered on the promise of lifetime health benefits earned by 200,000 retired coalminers and their widows. they would not have been taken care of if those companies had had their way. nor can we rely hope to private sector alone to take care of our veterans. it's government's duty to provide the health care they earned. we do this threw community based clinics and improved service for ptsd, traumatic brain injury and family support.

it's expensive. bob partin and i wanted to pass a bill which would cause the military -- the department of defense to give all people entering the military mental health screen, not when they came back from iraq or afghanistan or somewhere else, but before they went in, and then on an annual basis, do that again. to build a database, to make sure we knew that we could take care of them better when they came home. we rightly asked the government to take on of society0s most fundamental needs. when i founded, emmons was a community of genuinely strong, incredibly hard working people, who were essentially on their own trying to survive. the free market had not made sure that communities like emmons had good roads or any schools or any school buses or

any clean drinking water. or safe jobs. but from my point of view they deserved all of those. they deserved to have their shot. working together to deliver on the needs of places like emmons speaks to our core human connection, and to an aspiration for the greater good. that is what drove me into public service. it's not something -- i had to do it to help people with everything that i have. every individual in every community like emmons deserves to have public officials that will fight the big fights and the personal ones, the caseworker. extending a hand on those personal challenges is incredibly meaningful work. our constituents face these fights with herculean courage

but not always the resources to solve the problems in front of them. people like the eight-year-old who needed a bone marrow transplant, a procedure that in 1990 was considered experimental. our office intervened and we helped that boy get that transplant he is still with us today. as a senator you take on those fights with the same vigor as any policy or ideological debate. and you're equally proud when you win andow -- and you equally hurt when you lose. when i came to west virginia 50 years ago, i was searching for a clear purpose for my life's work. i wanted the work to be really hard. and what i got was an

opportunity to work really hard along with a real and utterly spiritual sense of mission. this work demands and deserves nothing less than everything that we have to give. i will miss the senate. some days i don't want to leave but it's time. which brings me to some profoundly important notes of gratitude. to my colleagues, i say, thank you. i have mentioned some -- i could mention so many. you're dedicated, you're principle brant, and you're public servants. i love you for putting up what you have to, particularly the way elections are these days. i respect you for so it much. thank you for fighting alongside me. thank you for challenging me.

to my staff, a senator is really nothing without his staff or her staff. and there is not a more committed, talented and deeply passionate staff in the united states senate to my staff you live and you breathe your work every day. you inspire me with your endless capacity for addressing injustice and fighting for people who need you and come to you in need. you never turned a single west virginiaan away. i glory in my gratitude to you. to my family, who sass sacrificed so much -- who has sacrificed so much, i thank you. i have been selfish in my devotion to my work and i has been vastly inept in balancing

family and work, public service is not encouraging of balance. sharon, you're everything. extraordinary mother, remarkable businesswoman, and you're a public servant. you have been a visionary in public broadcasting, our entire nation is indebted to your efforts to your efforts to educate and inform us. your impact on public life is remarkable, any achievement i am proud of, i share with you etermly. [applause] >> our children, john, charles, valerie and justin, heave been very thoughtful and endlessly supportive in my absences, and

our grandchildren bring me so much joy and i hope to see more of them. and to west virginia, thank you for placing your faith in me. i know it was hard at first. and giving me the greatest reward, the chance to fight for meaningful and lasting opportunity for those who are too often forgotten but absolutely deserve the best. my fellow west virginians i am forever inspired by you, and i am ever transformed by you. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. [applause] [applause]

[applause] >> next, a house judiciary committee hearing on allowing cam florida the supreme court. after that, pope francis speaks to the european parliament. followed by former senate leaders trend lott and tom dashle on issues facing congress. friday, nancy pelosi briefs reporteres on the democratic priority for the end of the year and the incoming 114th 114th coverage live coverage at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> friday, look at north and

south korea on how south korea's economy is impacting north korea and what it's like to report on north korea. we'll bring you live coverage starting at 1:45 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> the c-span cities tour takes booktv and american history tv on the road, traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. this weekend we partnered with time warner cable for a visit to waco, texas. >> as we began to receive the vinyl to be digitized, to be saved, we began turning over the b sides of the 45s in we received. first off, gospel music was not widely heard in the white community and would only be the hits but the flip side would be even less, and we discovered how many of the b side songs were directly related to the civil rights movement since there's very few databases, none of them

complete on gospel music, didn't know that. we didn't know the sheer number of songs that had -- very overt songs like, they're ain't know segregation in heaven, type songs, at a time when possessing one of those songs was very dangerous in the deep south. soon that sort -- singing that song outloud is a risk. >> the texas ranger hall of fame, set up in 1976 for the 175th anniversary of the rangers, and honors at this point 30 rangers who made major contributions to the service or gave their lives under heroic circumstances. we have paintings or portraits of all the rangers. they begin with steven a. austin. austin was very successful with his rangers. they fought not only managed to make the area reasonably safe for settlement from indian raid but when the texas war for

independence broke out, the rangers played major role in texas gaining its independence by staving off the mexican army long enough to allow the colonists to develop their own army and develop a strategy and as a result texas became it's ennation, the republic or texas, for ten years. >> representatives steve king of iowa and fill lofgren of california have introduced legislation that lets federal judges choose when to allow cameras in court proceedings. wednesday the house judiciary subcommittee on courts held a hearing. this is two hours.

>> the subcommittee will come to order wife objection the -- declare reeses at any time. we welcome our guests today. unfortunately, representative and chairman and the ranking member will not be able to make the meeting -- the hearing in the beginning. they may be here later on. and request of them i stated i would explain why they are not here. for members of the public who are here today or may otherwise be observing our hearing, i'm representative tom merino from pennsylvania, and i will be chairing the legislative hearing

today. i well recognize myself and then congressman from florida for initial opening statements. i will then recognize the chairman of the full committee representative and the ranking member to make their introductory remarks. with that explanation, today's legislative hearing is on hr917, the sunshine in the courtroom act of 2013. the bill was introducedby our distinguished colleague, representative steve king in april of 2013 and includes three additional membered of the judiciary committee, representative chafes, lofgren and deutsche, as original cosponsors, subsequent to the introduction, two additional members of the house signed on in support. representative king and lofgren are present with us this morning and will soon be recognized to testify on the reasons they believe the legislation should

be enacted. in addition, to representatives king and lofgren, we have two additional witnesses who will testify on a second panel. they're the honorable julie robinson, united states judge for the district of kansas, who will appear on behalf of the judicial conference of the united states, and mr. mickey ostereicher, the general counsel of the national press photographer's association on nppa. the principle authority contained in hr917 is in section 2b, which provides, subject to certain exceptions, the presiding judge, which is defined in the bill of each federal appellate court and district or trial level court, is authorized to permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting or televising to the public any proceedings over which the judge

provides. provisions would apply this authority to the supreme court of the united states as well as united states circuit courts of appeals and district courts. the purpose of hr917 as with similar bills introduced in prior congresses is meant to address the long-standing practice of the federal courts, which with few exceptions, prohibits the live electronic recording of media coverage or proceedings from inside the courtroom in general, proponents for the legislation believe existing prohibitions are a hinderance on transparency, education, and general public awareness of our law and judicial processes. due to limited access to the actual proceedings. as one of our witnesses will testify today, the ability to disseminate information via electronic coverage of courts proceedings, is a critical cop opponent indoorsing the public the modern equivalent of attending and observing proceedings in sum, opponents

believe a potential harm outweighs the benefiteds. chief among their concern is this proposition that the legislation has the potential to impair substantially the fundamental right of citizens to a fair trial, while undermining court security and the safety of jurors, witnesses, and other trial participants, including judges. beyond the general questions of whether cameras should be permitted in federal court proceedings are a myriad of additional questions that include where and when they should be permitted, whether consent of the parties should be required, whether the courts should control the operation and dissemination of materials, and whether congress would be required to provide additional fundings and resources to the court. today's hearing presents an opportunity to discuss inn detail the issues implicated by these fundamental questions. with that i conclude my opening remarks and recognize our acting ranking member from florida who is cosponsor of the bill that is

the subject of today's hearing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thanks to our colleagues for their leadership on this issue. judicial conference policy in the federal rules of criminal procedure prohibit the televising of spirit couple and federal court proceed little involving some of the most critical legal issues facing our nation. these policies impose severe limitations on the welcome's ability to observe court proceedings, interpreting laws that impact the daily lives of americans. these policies shroud the supreme court and federal court proceedings in secrecy and can raise questions in the mind of the public on the administration of justice. chief justice berger wrote of the important of public access to courtroom writing that trial courtroom is a public place where the people generally and representatives of the media have a right to be present and where their prince has been thought to enhance the integrity and quality of what takes place.

while richmond newspaper addressed public access to criminal proceed osgood, public as sees has been extended to civil trials as well. you can walk into the state or federal courtroom in america, seraphs benches of seats to accommodate public audiences interesting in watching the legal proceedings. the supreme court has public seating available to accommodate a lukey few. courtroom seating accommodates the nation tradition of court watching. for cases on important legal issues finding an available seat in the courtroom can be difficult if not impossible. moats people now received stipulations on important proceedings from press reports in various forms of media outlets 'don't belt me wrong. i appreciate the work that scott cuss blog dot bus the supreme court and federal court need to recognize and adopt to the changes to permit the next

generation of courtroom watching access. the act would improve u.s. supreme court and federal court transparency by increasing public acceptablity to proceedings. under the bill judges on a penal or the chief justice of the supreme court would have the discretion to permit the photography, the broadcasting, televising of proceedings. the bill also includes numerous protections for their parties involved that would permit the judge or judges to closed the court proceedings to be televised. the bill permits a judge or judges to consider if ted televising the proceed booth violate the due produce right0s a party involved and in addition a witness in the court proceed could go request to have their face and voice disgilessed -- disguised, and would not per -- the presiding jump of a court would have the discretion to create rules and disciplinary measures that could be enforce against members of the media in

the interests of preserving justice and fairness. the supreme court and our federal courts hear and consider some of the most important issues facing our country. the proceed examination thingses issued impact every facet of the lives of americans. that's justifies one of many examples. a three-judge panel in the d.c. court of appeals heard argument on the nsa's collection of phone data. the u.s. supreme court federal courts have heard and hear cases involving the affordable care act, immigration laws, interpretation of the second amendment, housing and foreclosure issues, political campaign cases and other pressing issues and yet very few people have an opportunity and most people never have the chance to observe the proceedings in person. public access to critical cases in the supreme court or federal courthouses is limited to the very few who can wait in line for hours and sometimes days or who can hire a person to stand in line for them.

the limited public access to the supreme court and federal court proceedings is inconsistent with the role of media and media recording devices are permitted in state supreme courts. time the u.s. supreme court and federal court practices changed. i'd like to thank again my colleagues, congressman king and congressman lofgren for their work and strong leadership on this critical issue. broadcasting the supreme coward and federal court proceedings will inslur the public has full access to oral argument on important issues and help ensure thatis is carried out for all to see. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, congressman deutch. aid like to now represent the distinguished member. >> mr. chairman, today's legislative hearing on hr917, the sunshine in the courtroom act of 2013, is one that raises substantial and important questions that have been the focus of this commitee's

attention before. the question surrounding whether and under what circumstances federal court proceeding should be televised or otherwise made available via electronic mediums is not novel but ones congress and the federal judiciary have considered in various forms for many years. in fact legislation to authorize broadcast or television coverage of federal court proceedings been introduce bed members typically with bipartisan support. in every congress dating back to at least 10 5th. most recently the committee reported a version of this legislation in 20 70 when a bill sponsored by representative steve chabot, was reported favor blimp hr917, the sunshine in the courtroom act of 2013, and the 2007 bill are substantially similar. the bill sponsor, representative steve king, stated in his written testimony this motivation and i believe in

introducing this bill that congress has the constitutional authority to act and the duty could use that authority to expand public access to our courts. proopinion anyones of the bill believe that the values of transparency, accountability and education will only be enhanced by expand public access to our federal courts however, the principle opponents opponents om threats courtroom legislation are the supreme court of the united states and the judicial conference of the united states. the latter of which functions as the policymaking body for the lower federal courts. each would be impacted by the enact of hr917 which authorizes the presiding judge of a court to allow cameras and recording devices to be operated in federal court proceedings subject to certain exceptions and qualifications. i appreciate judge robinson's appearance today, and believe it is vitally important that the judicial conference and the supreme court avail themselves of each opportunity to participate in the committee's consideration of legislation

that impacts our justice system. this is particularly true in matters that relate to the administration and operation of the federal judiciary. perhaps spurred by this committee's action in 2007 the judicial conference authorized a three-year pilot project in 2010 to evaluate the effects of cameras being used in district courts and related matters. 14 courts volunteered for the project, which is ongoing, limited to civil proceed examination scheduled to conclude in july 2015. following the pilot's conclusion the federal judicial center will prepare a report and provide to the judicial conferences committee on court administration and case management. it is then expected that cach will provide a report to the judicial conference regarding the possible future use of cameras in district courts. not withstandingstanding the ong nature of the pilot, the -- this legislation will have the potential item pair the

fundamental right of citizens to fair trial and undermining court security and the safety of jurors, witnesses, and other trial participants, including judges. it is clear the views of proponents opponents are strongly and sincerely held and that a discussion of the relative merits will benefit our consideration. i particularly want to thank mr. king and mr. shack bow for their work -- chabot for their work and congresswoman lofgren and congressmann deutch for their work. this deserves careful consideration by the committee. i yield back. >> thank you. i would now like to recognize the full committee ranking members, the distinguished gentleman from michigan, congressman conyers. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i wanted to begin by mentioning

that our colleague from new york, mr. indiana nadler, wanted to be here today but he is at the supreme court where there is oral argument going on in a very important case, and i wanted his absence to be noted and that he is very concerned about the proceedings taking place here in the judiciary committee. the sunshine in courtroom act, of course, would authorize photography, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising of any court proceeding held in the federal district court. and in the circuit court of appeals, and even the supreme

court of the united states. subject to some exceptions. as many of you may recall, the committee on the judiciary considered legislation substantially identical to hr hr917, and although i voted in favor of this prior legislation, i still have nevertheless several concerns, and most importantly, i want the proponents of hr917 to address the judicial conference's observation that this measure could potentially impair the fundamental right of a citizen to a fair and impartial trial...

a. >> in addition, experience teaches that there are numerous situations in which it might cause actual unfairness. so subtle as to do this by the

accused or controlled by the judge. and accordingly we would like hr 9172 explained how this ensures a fair trial. then we should also talk about how the bill protects privacy of participants in proceedings. clearly we must be cognizant that electronic media coverage presents the prospect of public disclosure of personal information that may have a material effect on the individual's willingness to testify and i realized that the bill authorizes a voice to be of secured under certain

circumstances. but is this sufficient to protect the witnesses privacy? and finally we must be mindful of the need to ensure the safety and security of our judges and our law enforcement officers and other participants in this judicial process. and some believe that cameras in the courtroom could heighten the level of and that includes the proceedings iran's highly controversial matters. this is currently in the midst of the pilot program expected to conclude next july. and among other things, examining the impact of electronic media on the safety and security of the courtroom. hopefully that program will provide guidance on this issue

so that the court security is not undermined. that concludes my statement and i yield back the balance of my time. [inaudible] >> thank you, congressman. the members opening statements will be made part of the record. and we have two very distinguished panels of witnesses today. each of the witnesses statements will be written to record in its entirety. and i asked each to summarize his or her testimony in five minutes or less to help you stay within the timing, there is a light on your table and we have one minute to conclude the testimony. in our first witness is

speaking, a member of congress that represents the fourth district of iowa. he serves on the small business committee and here on the judiciary committee. crying prior to being elected to congress he served in the iowa state senate for six years as chairman of the state government committee and vice chairman over the oversight budget committee. he studied math and science at northwest missouri state university. welcome, sir. in our second witness is joe loughlin, a member of congress representing the 19 district of california and she serves on the oversight subcommittee for the house administration committee and is a member of the science and technology committee and she also serves as ranking member of policy enforcement subcommittee and is a member of this subcommittee which has put oversight into a

intellectual-property on the judiciary committee. prior to being elected department in 1995 she served on the santa clara order of county supervisors for 14 years and earned her ged ged and a ba from stanford university. and we will start with representative king. >> i thank you in our ranking member and the subcommittee for the opportunity to bring this bill here before this hearing today and i would ask consent and introduce my written testimony into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to work our way down through the spell, i want to thank our colleagues and a good number of others for their bipartisan cooperation on this bill that is before us and it's a different

era than it was in the 21st century than it was when the constitution was ratified. within that, we have had few people that travel, there was an access because of logistical difficulties and that is what i consider part of this. and yet, something like this can be decided in the united states supreme court with a relative handful of people having only exclusive access to get him to hear a case like that. it is also true with obamacare and the affordable care act that it was a significant maneuver for even a member of the fishery committee to be able to get into the courtroom to hear the oral arguments before the court and i think the court needs to have the opportunity to make a decision to change that. we do not direct them to open up the cameras, but we provide the